The House of Delegates met at 12:15 a.m.,
and was called to order by the Honorable John Overington, Speaker Pro Tempore.

Prayer was offered and the House was led
in recitation of the Pledge of
Allegiance.

The reading of the Journal of Monday,
August 13, 2018, being the first order of business, such reading, on motion of
Delegate Graves, and by unanimous consent, was postponed one day.

At the request of Delegate Cowles, and in
the absence of objection, the House proceeded to further consideration of the Articles
of Impeachment.

Delegate Folk moved to add a new Article
fifteen to read as follows:

“Article XV

That the said Justice Elizabeth
Walker, being a Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia,
unmindful of the duties of her high office, and contrary to the oaths taken by
her to support the Constitution of the State of West Virginia and faithfully
discharge the duties of her office as such Justice, while in the exercise of
the functions of the office of Justice, in violation of her oath of office,
then and there, with regard to the discharge of the duties of her office, did
waste state funds with little or no concern for the costs to be borne by the
tax payer for unnecessary and lavish spending in that she hired outside counsel
to craft a legal opinion of the Court, in the case styled Quicken Loans, Inc.
v. Walters, 801 S.E.2d 509, 239 W. Va. 494 (2017), and for which competent
assistance in the form of personal clerks was provided to facilitate the
execution of the same; such action constitutes a wasteful expenditure not
necessary for the administration of justice and the execution of the duties of
the Court, which represents a waste of state funds.”

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Armstead, arose from his
seat to inquire whether the ruling yesterday regarding his request to be
excused from voting applied to this and other questions relating to impeachment.

The Speaker Pro Tempore replied that any
impact on Mr. Armstead would be as a member of a class of persons possibly to
be affected and refused to excuse him from voting.

On the adoption of the proposed Article
XV, Delegate Folk demanded the yeas and nays, which demand was sustained.

The
nays and nays having been demanded, they were taken (Roll No. 618), and
there were--yeas 26, nays 70, absent and not voting 4, with the yeas and absent
and not voting being as follows:

So,
a majority of the members present and voting not having voted in the
affirmative, the proposed Article XV was rejected.

Consideration of the Articles of
Impeachment having been concluded, the adopted articles were as follows:

Article I

That
the said Justice Allen Loughry, being a Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals
of West Virginia, unmindful of the duties of his high office, and contrary to
the oaths taken by him to support the Constitution of the State of West
Virginia and faithfully discharge the duties of his office as such Justice,
while in the exercise of the functions of the office of Justice, in violation
of his oath of office, then and there, with regard to the discharge of the
duties of his office, did waste state funds with little or no concern for the
costs to be borne by the tax payer for unnecessary and lavish spending in the
renovation and remodeling of his personal office, to the sum of approximately
$363,000, which sum included the purchase of a $31,924 couch, a $33,750 floor
with medallion, and other such wasteful expenditure not necessary for the
administration of justice and the execution of the duties of the Court, which
represents a waste of state funds.

Article II

That
the said Justice Robin Davis, being a Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals
of West Virginia, unmindful of the duties of her high office, and contrary to
the oaths taken by her to support the Constitution of the State of West
Virginia and faithfully discharge the duties of her office as such Justice,
while in the exercise of the functions of the office of Justice, in violation
of her oath of office, then and there, with regard to the discharge of the
duties of her office, did waste state funds with little or no concern for the
costs to be borne by the tax payer for unnecessary and lavish spending in the
renovation and remodeling of her personal office, to the sum of approximately
$500,000, which sum included, but is not limited to, the purchase of an oval
rug that cost approximately $20,500, a desk chair that cost approximately
$8,000 and over $23,000 in design services, and other such wasteful expenditure
not necessary for the administration of justice and the execution of the duties
of the Court, which represents a waste of state funds.

Article III

That
the said Justice Allen Loughry, being a Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals
of West Virginia, unmindful of the duties of his high office, and contrary to
the oaths taken by him to support the Constitution of the State of West
Virginia and faithfully discharge the duties of his office as such Justice,
while in the exercise of the functions of the office of Justice, in violation
of his oath of office, then and there, with regard to the discharge of the
duties of his office, did on or about June 20, 2013, cause a certain desk, of a
type colloquially known as a “Cass Gilbert” desk, to be transported from the
State Capitol to his home, and did maintain possession of such desk in his
home, where it remained throughout his term as Justice for approximately four
and one-half years, in violation of the provisions of W.Va. Code §29-1-7 (b),
prohibiting the removal of original furnishings of the state capitol from the
premises; further, the expenditure of state funds to transport the desk to his
home, and refusal to return the desk to the state, constitute the use of state
resources and property for personal gain in violation of the provisions of
W.Va. Code §6B-2-5, the provisions of the West Virginia State Ethics Act, and
constitute a violation of the provisions of Canon I of the West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct.

Article IV

That
the said Chief Justice Margaret Workman, and Justice Robin Davis, being at all
times relevant Justices of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, and
at various relevant times individually each Chief Justice of the Supreme Court
of Appeals of West Virginia unmindful of the duties of their high offices, and
contrary to the oaths taken by them to support the Constitution of the State of
West Virginia and faithfully discharge the duties of their offices as such
Justices, while in the exercise of the functions of the office of Justices, in
violation of their oaths of office, then and there, with regard to the
discharge of the duties of their offices, commencing in or about 2012, did
knowingly and intentionally act, and each subsequently oversee in their
capacity as Chief Justice, and did in that capacity as Chief Justice severally
sign and approve the contracts necessary to facilitate, at each such relevant
time, to overpay certain Senior Status Judges in violation of the statutory
limited maximum salary for such Judges, which overpayment is a violation of Article
VIII, §7 of the West Virginia Constitution, stating that Judges “shall receive
the salaries fixed by law” and the provisions of W.Va. Code §51-2-13 and W.Va.
Code §51-9-10, and, in violation of an Administrative Order of the Supreme
Court of Appeals, in potential violation of the provisions of W.Va. Code
§61-3-22, relating to the crime of falsification of accounts with intent to
enable or assist any person to obtain money to which he was not entitled, and,
in potential violation of the provisions set forth in W.Va. Code §61-3-24,
relating to the crime of obtaining money, property and services by false
pretenses, and, all of the above are in violation of the provisions of Canon I
and Canon II of the West Virginia Code of Judicial
Conduct.

Article
V

That
the said Justice Robin Davis, being at all times relevant a Justice of the
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, and at certain relevant times
individually Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia,
unmindful of the duties of her high offices, and contrary to the oaths taken by
her to support the Constitution of the State of West Virginia and faithfully
discharge the duties of his office as such Justice, while in the exercise of
the functions of the office of Justice, in violation of her oath of office,
then and there, with regard to the discharge of the duties of her office, did
in the year 2014, did in her capacity as Chief Justice, sign certain Forms WV
48, to retain and compensate certain Senior Status Judges the execution of
which forms allowed the Supreme Court of Appeals to overpay those certain
Senior Status Judges in violation of Article VIII, § 7 of the West Virginia
Constitution, stating that Judges “shall receive the salaries fixed by law” and
the statutorily limited maximum salary for such Judges, which overpayment is a
violation of the provisions of W.Va. Code §51-2-13 and W.Va. Code §51-9-10; her
authorization of such overpayments was a violation of the clear statutory law
of the state of West Virginia, as set forth in those relevant Code sections,
and, was an act in potential violation of the provisions set forth in W.Va.
Code §61-3-22, relating to the crime of falsification of accounts with intent
to enable or assist any person to obtain money to which he was not entitled,
and, in potential violation of the provisions set forth in W.Va. Code §61-3-24,
relating to the crime of obtaining money, property and services by false
pretenses, and all of the above are in violation of the provisions of Canon I
and Canon II of the West Virginia Code of Judicial
Conduct.

Article
VI

That
the said Justice Margaret Workman, being at all times relevant a Justice of the
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, and at certain relevant times
individually Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia,
unmindful of the duties of her high offices, and contrary to the oaths taken by
her to support the Constitution of the State of West Virginia and faithfully discharge
the duties of his office as such Justice, while in the exercise of the
functions of the office of Justice, in violation of her oath of office, then
and there, with regard to the discharge of the duties of her office, did in the
year 2015, did in her capacity as Chief Justice, sign certain Forms WV 48, to
retain and compensate certain Senior Status Judges the execution of which forms
allowed the Supreme Court of Appeals to overpay those certain Senior Status
Judges in violation of the statutorily limited maximum salary for such Judges,
which overpayment is a violation of Article VIII, § 7 of the West Virginia
Constitution, stating that Judges “shall receive the salaries fixed by law” and
the provisions of W.Va. Code §51-2-13 and W.Va. Code §51-9-10; her
authorization of such overpayments was a violation of the clear statutory law
of the state of West Virginia, as set forth in those relevant Code sections,
and, was an act in potential violation of the provisions set forth in W.Va.
Code §61-3-22, relating to the crime of falsification of accounts with intent
to enable or assist any person to obtain money to which he was not entitled,
and, in potential violation of the provisions set forth in W.Va. Code §61-3-24,
relating to the crime of obtaining money, property and services by false
pretenses, and all of the above are in violation of the provisions of Canon I
and Canon II of the West Virginia Code of Judicial
Conduct.

Article
VII

That
the said Justice Allen Loughry, being at all times relevant a Justice of the
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, and at that relevant time
individually Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia,
unmindful of the duties of his high offices, and contrary to the oaths taken by
him to support the Constitution of the State of West Virginia and faithfully
discharge the duties of his office as such Justices, while in the exercise of
the functions of the office of Justice, in violation of his oath of office,
then and there, with regard to the discharge of the duties of his office, did
on or about May 19, 2017, did in his capacity as Chief Justice, draft an
Administrative Order of the Supreme Court of Appeals, bearing his signature,
authorizing the Supreme Court of Appeals to overpay certain Senior Status Judges
in violation of the statutorily limited maximum salary for such Judges, which
overpayment is a violation of Article VIII, § 7 of the West Virginia
Constitution, stating that Judges “shall receive the salaries fixed by law” and
the provisions of W.Va. Code §51-2-13 and W.Va. Code §51-9-10; his
authorization of such overpayments was a violation of the clear statutory law
of the state of West Virginia, as set forth in those relevant Code sections,
and, was an act in potential violation of the provisions set forth in W.Va.
Code §61-3-22, relating to the crime of falsification of accounts with intent
to enable or assist any person to obtain money to which he was not entitled,
and, in potential violation of the provisions set forth in W.Va. Code §61-3-24,
relating to the crime of obtaining money, property and services by false
pretenses, and all of the above are in violation of the provisions of Canon I
and Canon II of the West Virginia Code of Judicial
Conduct.

Article
VIII

That
the said Justice Allen Loughry, being a Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals
of West Virginia, unmindful of the duties of his high office, and contrary to
the oaths taken by him to support the Constitution of the State of West
Virginia and faithfully discharge the duties of his office as such Justice,
while in the exercise of the functions of the office of Justice, in violation
of his oath of office, then and there, with regard to the discharge of the
duties of his office, did beginning in or about December 2012, and continuing thereafter
for a period of years, intentionally acquire and use state government vehicles
for personal use; including, but not limited to, using a state vehicle and
gasoline purchased utilizing a state issued fuel purchase card to travel to the
Greenbrier on one or more occasions for book signings and sales, which such
acts enriched his family and which acts constitute the use of state resources
and property for personal gain in violation of the provisions of W.Va. Code
§6B-2-5, the provisions of the West Virginia State Ethics Act, and constitute a
violation of the provisions of Canon I of the West
Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct.

Article
IX

That
the said Justice Allen Loughry, being a Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals
of West Virginia, unmindful of the duties of his high office, and contrary to
the oaths taken by him to support the Constitution of the State of West
Virginia and faithfully discharge the duties of his office as such Justice,
while in the exercise of the functions of the office of Justice, in violation
of his oath of office, then and there, with regard to the discharge of the
duties of his office, did beginning in or about December 2012, intentionally
acquired and used state government computer equipment and hardware for
predominately personal use—including a computer not intended to be connected to
the court’s network, utilized state resources to install computer access
services at his home for predominately personal use, and utilized state
resources to provide maintenance and repair of computer services for his
residence resulting from predominately personal use; all of which acts
constitute the use of state resources and property for personal gain in
violation of the provisions of W.Va. Code §6B-2-5, the provisions of the West
Virginia State Ethics Act, and constitute a violation of the provisions of
Canon I of the West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct.

Article
X

That
the said Justice Allen Loughry, being a Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals
of West Virginia, unmindful of the duties of his high office, and contrary to
the oaths taken by him to support the Constitution of the State of West
Virginia and faithfully discharge the duties of his office as such Justice,
while in the exercise of the functions of the office of Justice, in violation
of his oath of office, then and there, with regard to the discharge of the
duties of his office, made statements while under oath before the West Virginia
House of Delegates Finance Committee, with deliberate intent to deceive,
regarding renovations and purchases for his office, asserting that he had no
knowledge and involvement in these renovations, where evidence presented
clearly demonstrated his in-depth knowledge and participation in those
renovations, and, his intentional efforts to deceive members of the Legislature
about his participation and knowledge of these acts, while under oath.

Article
XIV

That
the said Chief Justice Margaret Workman, Justice Allen Loughry, Justice Robin
Davis, and Justice Elizabeth Walker, being at all times relevant Justices of
the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, unmindful of the duties of their
high offices, and contrary to the oaths taken by them to support the
Constitution of the State of West Virginia and faithfully discharge the duties
of their offices as such Justices, while in the exercise of the functions of
the office of Justices, in violation of their oaths of office, then and there,
with regard to the discharge of the duties of their offices, did, in the
absence of any policy to prevent or control expenditure, waste state funds with
little or no concern for the costs to be borne by the tax payers for
unnecessary and lavish spending for various purposes including, but without
limitation, to certain examples, such as: to remodel state offices, for large
increases in travel budgets—including unaccountable personal use of state
vehicles, for unneeded computers for home use, for regular lunches from
restaurants, and for framing of personal items and other such wasteful
expenditure not necessary for the administration of justice and the execution
of the duties of the Court; and, did fail to provide or prepare reasonable and
proper supervisory oversight of the operations of the Court and the
subordinate courts by failing to carry out one or more of the following
necessary and proper administrative activities:

A)To prepare and adopt sufficient and effective travel policies prior to
October of 2016, and failed thereafter to properly effectuate such policy by
excepting the Justices from said policies, and subjected subordinates and
employees to a greater burden than the Justices;

B)To report taxable fringe benefits, such as car use and regular lunches,
on Federal W-2s, despite full knowledge of the Internal Revenue Service
Regulations, and further subjected subordinates and employees to a greater
burden than the Justices, in this regard, and upon notification of such
violation, failed to speedily comply with requests to make such reporting
consistent with applicable law;

C)To provide proper supervision, control, and auditing of the use of state
purchasing cards leading to multiple violations of state statutes and policies
regulating the proper use of such cards, including failing to obtain proper
prior approval for large purchases;

D)To prepare and adopt sufficient and effective home office policies which
would govern the Justices’ home computer use, and which led to a lack of
oversight which encouraged the conversion of property;

E)To provide effective supervision and control over record keeping with
respect to the use of state automobiles, which has already resulted in an
executed information upon one former Justice and the indictment of another
Justice.

F) To provide effective supervision and control over inventories of state
property owned by the Court and subordinate courts, which led directly to the
undetected absence of valuable state property, including, but not limited to, a
state-owned desk and a state-owned computer;

G)To provide effective supervision and control over purchasing procedures
which directly led to inadequate cost containment methods, including the
rebidding of the purchases of goods and services utilizing a system of large
unsupervised change orders, all of which encouraged waste of taxpayer funds.

The
failure by the Justices, individually and collectively, to carry out these
necessary and proper administrative activities constitute a violation of the
provisions of Canon I and Canon II of the West
Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct.

Whereas, Supreme Court Justice Allen Loughry, II,
unmindful of his duties of his high office, and concurrent with other Justices
of the Supreme Court, has exhibited a pattern and practice of wasteful spending
on his personal office at the state Capitol, undertaking renovations that were
unnecessary and lavish, with a total cost in excess of $363,000, to personalize
the office to his personal tastes, including a $31,924 couch and a $33,750
customized floor; further, these renovations were undertaken without
consideration to the fact that all state officers are tenants of their offices,
not owners thereof, and although it is appropriate to update and modernize
these spaces when needed, the citizens of this state expect reasonableness and
frugality with the use of government funds; further, that the costs of these
renovations, during difficult financial times in our great state, when so many
citizens are struggling to earn a living, showed a true loss of perspective of
his role as a steward of government resources and the Supreme Court, and his
spending was wasteful, excessive, and outrageous, and although not unlawful,
exhibited extremely poor judgement; and

Whereas, Supreme Court Justice Robin Davis, unmindful of
her duties of her high office, and concurrent with other Justices of the
Supreme Court, has exhibited a pattern and practice of wasteful spending on her
personal office at the state Capitol, undertaking renovations that were
unnecessary and lavish, with a total cost in excess of $500,000, to personalize
the office to her personal tastes, inconsistent with the historical design and
dignity of our beautiful state Capitol; further, these renovations were
undertaken without consideration to the fact that all state officers are
tenants of their offices, not owners thereof, and although it is appropriate to
update and modernize these spaces when needed, the citizens of this state
expect reasonableness and frugality with the use of government funds; further,
that the costs of these renovations, during difficult financial times in our
great state, when so many citizens are struggling to earn a living, showed a
true loss of perspective of her role as a steward of government resources and
the Supreme Court, and her spending was wasteful, excessive, and although not
unlawful, exhibited extremely poor judgement; and

Whereas, Supreme Court Justice Margaret Workman, unmindful
of her duties of her high office, and concurrent with other Justices of the
Supreme Court, has exhibited a pattern and practice of wasteful spending on her
personal office at the state Capitol, undertaking renovations that were
unnecessary and lavish, with a total cost in excess of $111,000; further, these
renovations were undertaken without consideration to the fact that all state
officers are tenants of their offices, not owners thereof, and although it is
appropriate to update and modernize these spaces when needed, the citizens of
this state expect reasonableness and frugality with the use of government
funds; further, that the costs of these renovations, during difficult financial
times in our great state, when so many citizens are struggling to earn a
living, showed a true loss of perspective of her role as a steward of
government resources and the Supreme Court, and her spending was wasteful,
excessive, and although not unlawful, exhibited extremely poor judgement; and

Whereas, Supreme Court Justice Elizabeth Walker, unmindful
of her duties of her high office, and concurrent with other Justices of the
Supreme Court, has exhibited a pattern and practice of wasteful spending on her
personal office at the state Capitol, undertaking renovations that were
unnecessary and lavish, with a total cost in excess of $131,000; further, these
renovations were undertaken without consideration to the fact that all state
officers are tenants of their offices, not owners thereof, and although it is
appropriate to update and modernize these spaces when needed, the citizens of
this state expect reasonableness and frugality with the use of government
funds; further, that the costs of these renovations, during difficult financial
times in our great state, when so many citizens are struggling to earn a
living, showed a true loss of perspective of her role as a steward of
government resources and the Supreme Court, and her spending was wasteful,
excessive, and although not unlawful, exhibited extremely poor judgement; and

Whereas, Justice Allen Loughry, II, Justice Robin Davis,
Justice Margaret Workman, and Justice Elizabeth Walker, being at all times
relevant Justices of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, unmindful
of the duties of their high offices, and contrary to the oaths taken by them to
support the Constitution of the State of West Virginia and faithfully discharge
the duties of their offices as such Justices, while in the exercise of the
functions of the office of Justices, in violation of their oaths of office,
then and there, with regard to the discharge of the duties of their offices,
did, in the absence of any policy to prevent or control expenditure, waste
state funds with little or no concern for the costs to be borne by the tax
payers for unnecessary and lavish spending for various purposes including, but
without limitation, to certain examples, such as: to remodel state offices, for
large increases in travel budgets—including unaccountable personal use of state
vehicles, for unneeded computers for home use, for regular lunches from
restaurants, for framing of personal items, and other such wasteful
expenditures not necessary for the administration of justice and the execution
of the duties of the Court; and, did fail to provide or prepare reasonable and
proper supervisory oversight of the operations of the Court and the subordinate
courts by failing to carry out one or more of the following necessary and
proper administrative activities:

A) To prepare and adopt sufficient and effective travel
policies prior to October of 2016, and failed thereafter to properly effectuate
such policy by excepting the Justices from said policies, and subjected subordinates
and employees to a greater burden than the Justices;

B) To report taxable fringe benefits, such as car use and
regular lunches, on Federal W- 2 forms, despite full knowledge of the Internal
Revenue Service Regulations, and further subjected subordinates and employees
to a greater burden than the Justices in this regard, and upon notification of
such violation, failed to speedily comply with requests to make such reporting
consistent with applicable law;

C) To provide proper supervision, control, and auditing of
the use of state purchasing cards leading to multiple violations of state
statutes and policies regulating the proper use of such cards, including
failing to obtain proper prior approval for large purchases;

D) To prepare and adopt sufficient and effective home
office policies which would govern the Justices’ home computer use, and which
led to a lack of oversight, which encouraged the conversion of property;

E) To provide effective supervision and control over
record keeping with respect to the use of state automobiles, which has already
resulted in an executed information upon one former Justice and the indictment
of another Justice;

F) To provide effective supervision and control over
inventories of state property owned by the Court and subordinate courts, which
led directly to the undetected absence of valuable state property, including,
but not limited to, a state-owned desk and a state-owned computer; and

G) To provide effective supervision and control over
purchasing procedures which directly lead to inadequate cost containment
methods, including the rebidding of the purchases of goods and services
utilizing a system of large unsupervised change orders, all of which encouraged
waste of taxpayer funds.

Whereas, The failure by the Justices, individually and
collectively, to carry out these necessary and proper administrative activities
constitute a violation of the provisions of Canon I and Canon II of the West
Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct; therefore, be it

At the request of Delegate Cowles, and by
unanimous consent, reference of the resolution (H. R. 203) to a committee was
dispensed with, and it was taken up for immediate consideration.

The question now being on the adoption of
the resolution, Delegate Sponaugle demanded the yeas and nays, which demand was
sustained.

The yeas and nays having been ordered,
they were taken (Roll No. 619), and there were--yeas 95, nays 1, absent
and not voting 4, with the nays and absent and not voting being as follows:

Nays: Fast.

Absent and Not Voting: Deem, Miley,
Phillips and Storch.

So, a majority of the members present and
voting having voted in the affirmative, the Speaker declared the resolution (H.
R. 203) adopted.

Delegate Folk offered the following
resolution, which was read by its title and referred to the Committee on the
Judiciary:

H. R. 204 - “Recommending the
public reprimand and censure of Menis Ketchum and Brent Benjamin, former
Justices of the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of West Virginia.”

WHEREAS, On the twenty-sixth of June, two
thousand eighteen, House Resolution 201 was presented to the House of
Delegates, authorizing the investigation of the Justices of the Supreme Court
of Appeals of the State of West Virginia; and

WHEREAS, when that resolution was adopted
by the House of Delegates it empowered the Committee on the Judiciary to, among
other things, “report to the House of Delegates its findings of facts and any
recommendations which the Committee on the Judiciary may deem proper” respecting
the matters raised in the said House Resolution; and

WHEREAS, During the course of its
proceedings pursuant to said House Resolution 201, the Committee on the
Judiciary heard testimony and reviewed documentary evidence concerning the
official conduct of Justices of the Supreme Court of Appeals of the State of
West Virginia, including the official conduct of Menis Ketchum and Brent
Benjamin, former Justices of that Court; and

WHEREAS, The Committee on the Judiciary
has concluded its proceedings with respect to the said House Resolution 201
and, in addition to other recommendations otherwise dealt with, has submitted its
findings and recommendation; and

WHEREAS, as a result of the aforementioned
proceedings, the Committee has heard testimony and reviewed documentary
evidence presented that the aforesaid Menis Ketchum and Brent Benjamin, former
Justices of that Court; were at various relevant times individually each Chief
Justice of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, and unmindful of the
duties of their high offices, and contrary to the oaths taken by them to
support the Constitution of the State of West Virginia and faithfully discharge
the duties of their offices as such Justices, while in the exercise of the
functions of the office of Justices, in violation of their oaths of office,
then and there, with regard to the discharge of the duties of their offices,
commencing in or about 2012, did knowingly and intentionally act, and each subsequently
oversee in their capacity as Chief Justice, and did in that capacity as Chief
Justice severally sign and approve the contracts necessary to facilitate, at
each such relevant time, to overpay certain Senior Status Judges in violation
of the statutory limited maximum salary for such Judges, which overpayment is a
violation of the provisions of W.Va. Code §51-2-13 and W.Va. Code §51-9-10, and,
in violation of an Administrative Order of the Supreme Court of Appeals, in potential
violation of the provisions of W.Va. Code §61-3-22, relating to the crime of falsification
of accounts with intent to enable or assist any person
to obtain money to which he was not entitled, and in potential violation of the
provisions of W.Va. Code §5-10-45, relating to the crime of fraud
against the West Virginia Public Employees Retirement System, and, in potential
violation of the provisions set forth in W.Va. Code §61-3-24, relating to the
crime of obtaining money, property and services by false pretenses, and, all of
the above are in violation of the provisions of Canon I and Canon II of the
West Virginia Code of Judicial Conduct; and

WHEREAS, The House of Delegates is of the
opinion that the said Menis Ketchum and Brent Benjamin, former Justices of the
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia should be publicly reprimanded and
censured for and because of their aforementioned conduct; therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Delegates:

That Menis Ketchum and Brent Benjamin, former Justices of
the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia are hereby publicly reprimanded
and censured for and because of this aforementioned conduct; and, be it

Further
resolved, That the
Clerk of the House of Delegates be and he is hereby directed to forward a copy
of this resolution to the said Menis Ketchum and Brent Benjamin, former
Justices of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Delegate Cowles offered the following
resolution, which was read by its title as follows:

Whereas,
Pursuant to the authority granted to the House of Delegates in Section 9,
Article IV of the Constitution of the State of West Virginia, the House of
Delegates has adopted 11 Articles of Impeachment against the various justices
of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, including Chief Justice
Margaret Workman, Justice Allen Loughry, Justice Robin Davis, and Justice
Elizabeth Walker, for maladministration, corruption, incompetency, neglect of
duty, and certain high crimes and misdemeanors committed in their capacity and
by virtue of their offices as Justices of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West
Virginia; and

Whereas,
The House of Delegates, saving to themselves the liberty and rights of
exhibiting at any time hereafter any further Articles of Impeachment against
the said Chief Justice Workman, Justice Allen Loughry, Justice Robin Davis and
Justice Elizabeth Walker, Justices of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West
Virginia, individually and collectively, as aforesaid, and also of replying to
their answers which they may make unto the Articles herein proffered against
them, and of offering proof to any and all of the Articles of Impeachment, and
every part thereof, and to all and every other Article, accusation, or
impeachment, which shall be exhibited by the said House of Delegates as the
case may require, do demand that the said Chief Justice Margaret Workman,
Justice Allen Loughry, Justice Robin Davis, and Justice Elizabeth Walker,
Justices of the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia, individually and
collectively, as aforesaid, may be put to answer the maladministration,
corruption, incompetency, neglect of duty, and certain high crimes and
misdemeanors charged against them, and that such proceedings, examinations,
trials and judgments, may be thereupon had, given and taken, as may be
agreeable to the Constitution and the laws of the State of West Virginia, as
justice may require; therefore, be it

Further
Resolved, That said committee of five
members of the House of Delegates be and is hereby directed to act as managers
on part of the House of Delegates to carry and deliver to the Clerk of the
Senate the said articles of impeachment; and, be it

Further
Resolved, That said committee of five, as
managers, be and is hereby directed to conduct the impeachment against the said
Robin Davis, Allen Loughry, Elizabeth Walker, and Margaret Workman, Justices of
the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, before the Senate, in accordance
with procedural rules adopted by the Senate, with all necessary assistance as
may be required and provided by employees of the House or Senate and by such
professional, clerical and stenographic assistants as may be engaged by the
House or Senate for such purposes.

At
the respective requests of Delegate Cowles, and by unanimous consent, reference
of the resolution (H. R. 205) to a committee was dispensed with, and it was
taken up for immediate consideration and adopted.

Bills Introduced

A bill was introduced, pursuant to House Rule
92, and referred as follows:

H.
B. 201 - “A Bill to amend and reenact §3-10-3 of the Code of West Virginia,
1931, as amended, relating to providing for a special election for State
Supreme Court Justice when a vacancy has occurred as the result of impeachment;
and providing that any member of the legislature is prohibited from running for
vacated seat”; to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Delegate Sponaugle asked unanimous
consent that the House rules be suspended and the bill be taken up for
immediate consideration and read a first time.

Delegate Cowles moved
that the motion be tabled.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Armstead
requested to be excused from voting under the provisions of House Rule 49.

The Speaker Pro Temp replied
that any impact on the Delegate would be as a member of a class of persons possibly
to be affected by the amendment and refused to excuse the Delegate from voting.

On the motion to table,
the yeas and nays were demanded, which demand was sustained.

The yeas and nays having
been ordered, they were taken (Roll No. 620), and there were--yeas
60, nays 35, absent and not voting 5, with the nays and absent and not voting
being as follows: